An assessment of the validity and consequences of the concept of an 'open God' as propounded by Clark Pinnock in "The openness of God."
Outline
The "open" view of God is described as follows: "God, in grace, grants humans significant freedom to co-operate with or work against God's will for their lives, and he enters into a dynamic give-and-take relationship with us...We respond to God's gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses...God takes risks in this give-and-take relationship, yet he is endlessly resourceful and competent in working toward his ultimate goals."[1] Therefore, "creation does not entail that God controls and determines everything,"[2] rather he “willingly surrenders power and makes possible a partnership with the creature."[3] Indeed, God cannot "unilaterally control human decision making that is truly voluntary,"[4] although he "retains the power and moral perogative to inhibit occasionally our ability to make voluntary choices to keep things on track."[5] Generally however, only by "adapting his own plans to fit the changing situation"[6] does God achieve his goals. Furthermore, God's omniscience extends only to the past and present, as to know the future requires that it is fixed. Subsequently, God is "temporally everlasting,"[7] experiencing time moment by moment and so learning new things.
"Two basic convictions" under-gird this view: "love is the most important quality we attribute to God, and love is more than care and commitment, it involves being sensitive and responsive as well."[8] The "caring parent" is therefore adopted as the truly biblical "controlling metaphor" for God, and the “classical” model (labelled "aloof monarch") is rejecting as a leftover from Greek philosophy.[9] Thus, it can be said that God's "inner life is not static or impassive at all," but "surges with powerful emotions." Although God is "changeless" according to his "existence and character," he is therefore "changing" according to his "actions and experience."[10] Only this view, it is argued, is consistent with God knowing "genuine interaction"[11] with humanity, doing justice to the particular instances of divine repentance and suffering in the bible.[12]
Methodology
In assessment, three initial methodological questions need to be asked. First, it is suggested that the traditional view stems more from Hellenistic influence than the bible. Richmond responds to this by highlighting both that the Church Fathers were prepared to reject Greek views that they considered unbiblical, and that Hebrew culture had been influenced in this way centuries before the New Testament was written, meaning that the bible itself may use such thinking to portray God.[13] However, could it also be that in comparison, the “open” view is itself culturally influenced? Its experiential doctrinal emphasis, together with its occasional subjective justification on the grounds that it "resonates with the traditional Christian devotional life,"[14] certainly echoes post-modern trends. Second, on what grounds is it valid to adopt love as God's "most important quality?" Amongst many other descriptions, scripture also states that "God is a consuming fire."[15] He may be a parent to the righteous, but to the wicked he is a wrathful judge. No one term sufficiently describes God. With respect to his love alone,
Providence
A consideration of the “openness” argument as a whole suggests that it is an a-priori commitment to libertarian human freedom that may actually be its hermeneutical key. This view of freedom asserts that an individual is free only if he is able to perform or refrain from a specific action.[18] Such a commitment requires one to conclude both a risky-universe and retrospective-omniscience, for if the future was fixed and known, then at any moment it would be theoretically impossible for an individual to choose otherwise.[19] However, the bible just doesn't allow such a marginalising of God's sovereignty. Rather, God "accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will."[20] Not only does God's providence extend to the universe,[21] physical world,[22] animals,[23] affairs of nations,[24] and even the most random events,[25] but with respect to individuals, it governs man's birth and the events of his life,[26] raises people up for specific purposes,[27] punishes the wicked,[28] protects and supplies the needs of the righteous,[29] and answers prayer.[30] Moreover, God is clearly portrayed as indirectly responsible for bringing about suffering,[31] and even for evil human acts,[32] thoughts or desires,[33] unbelief,[34] and the crucifixion of Christ himself.[35] Indeed, he may use Satan to fulfil these purposes.[36] The parallel biblical stress on human responsibility must account for this substantial testimony. Ironically, having rejected combatibilism on the grounds that it is illogical, Hasker then later asserts with respect to the open view, "our inability to show how God can logically guarantee that humans will respond to his love" does not "constitute a serious objection."[37] It seems that on this matter he desires to both have his cake and eat it. Similarly, Pinnock dismisses as "nonsense" the compatibilist suggestion that in acknowledging a degree of mystery, one must therefore "uphold genuine freedom and divine determinism at the same time."[38] However, in defining freedom according to scripture, combatibilism alone seems to do justice to the sweep of biblical teaching. Calvin himself wrote: "The question of free will does not depend on whether we can accomplish what we will, but whether we can will freely."[39] Thus, however God ensures that we always act according to his purposes, he does so by utilising the "free" desires of our wills, arousing or tempering them, and then permitting, strengthening, or prohibiting their endeavours. We therefore act only because we choose to, and God is not accountable for any evil in this action because his purpose and intent is different, and he is the remote rather than the proximate cause of it.[40] With respect to the "open" view, it is unlikely whether libertarian freedom is even possible in a world where so much complexity influences human decision-making. Moreover, in retaining the idea that God may occasionally overide such freedom to ensure the fulfilment of his purposes, the moral objection to his control remains, whilst the many factors involved in the causation of any event suggest that such intervention would need to be broad and significant. In fact, if God's normal interaction with the world really is akin to a chess game, then how does he move his pieces to respond to one individual without compromising the freedom of another, and how can he best-guess the future unless some degree of determinism exists?
By contrast, the above biblical teaching on providence asserts that God holds total control of the universe, and that it is subsequently risk-free. In labelling such control as "domineering,"[41] tyrannical,[42] and akin to a dictatorship,[43] whilst suggesting that the "open" God displays more self-confidence, wisdom, love, sensitivity, and power[44] than the classical one, Pinnock linguistically bullies his readers away from orthodoxy. However, the God of scripture is supremely powerful exactly because he can be absolutely sovereign, whilst being consistent to his good character and creating a universe of responsible human beings. Moreover, a risky universe is far more morally outrageous. Hasker questions God knowingly bringing about a world in which Hitler is brought to power.[45] Yet how much more horrific is a world where such individuals are not subject to God's sovereign control, where they can force God's hand, but he cannot force theirs! The "caring parent" metaphor surely fails here. Human suffering is not like allowing a child to trip on soft grass as it learns to walk.[46] No truly caring parent would allow its children to be subject to the whims of this wicked world without exercising full control. Furthermore, under the "open" view, God still chooses not to intervene to prevent suffering despite reserving the right to do so.
Omniscience
The bible also asserts that God knows the future as well as the present and past. The “openness” theologians formulate three categories of prophecy. Some are "conditional on the actions of human beings, others are predictions based on existing trends and tendencies, while still others are announcements of what God himself intends to bring about."[47] Although the first category requires certain caveats, it is the second that most rests on God not having prospective-omniscience, but instead making best-guess predictions. Yet this flatly contradicts the scriptural test of true prophecy being that which tales place and proves true,[48] and ignores the specificity of the prophecies assigned to this group.[49] Indeed, it is precisely his ability to accurately declare "the things to come" that sets God above idols.[50] Furthermore, if all specific non-conditional prophecy therefore refers to category three events that God will specially bring about despite human freedom, then the books of Daniel and Revelation portray such intervention encompassing at least the entire history of civilisation from the exile to the present day. More specifically, if that which God has committed to bring about may still be held-up by the free and un-foreknowable actions of humans, then how can Jesus say that the Father truly knows when he will return?[51] Astoundingly, Pinnock writes: "We should not think of God's omniscience as a vast encyclopaedia of past, present and future facts. The Bible does not see it this way…" Yet this is exactly how the bible does see it: "In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed."[52]
God's knowledge of the future does not however depend on whether he is eternally timeless or temporally eternal. If the former, then he knows the future because he has decided upon and so decreed it in advance. If the latter, then also because it is eternally present to him.[53] Either way, God may be seen to interact meaningfully with history because his decrees themselves unfold within time and space. However, although one might see how a thousand years could be like a day, it is difficult to see how a day could simultaneously be like a thousand years[54] if these expressions refer to the consistent moment by moment existence of a temporal God.
Metaphor
In assessing the metaphorical language of repentance, emotion and suffering, the above truths must be considered. In asserting God's absolute providence and omniscience, the bible does not allow the possibility that he is surprised by human decision and therefore experientially changed by it. Moreover, because the Father answers "prayers which have been inspired by the Spirit according to the will of the Son," prayer comes as no surprise, and through it God is ultimately acted upon by no-one but himself.[55] However, this is not to say that repentance is unreal. By interacting with and through his temporal decrees, it would be true that at one moment God may be expressing wrath, and then due to a cry for forgiveness, express mercy. Indeed it is the constancy of his nature that guarantees the consistency of such changes, as that nature expresses itself differently in response to differing human action. Nor is it to say that God doesn't experience emotions. Rather, he sustains none "that makes him vulnerable from the outside, over which he has no control, or which he has not foreseen."[56] Thus, his "passions" neither alter his ordained purposes or irrationally provoke his decisions. In critiquing the openness theologians,
Rather like the falling of dominoes, it seems that a desire to justify libertarian freedom has led to the collapse of a logical line of other scriptural doctrines. As the "open" framework continues to be formulated, it might therefore be expected that more dominoes will fall both theologically and pastorally. It is these potential consequences that the remainder of this essay seeks to assess.
Theological consequences
The primacy of libertarian freedom together with God's retrospective-omniscience has implications for both the authority and interpretation of the bible. Inerrancy relies not only on the work of the Spirit in inspiring the authors, but the providential work of God in ensuring that the research, collation, editing, and writing of the original autographs, together with their later canonisation, was correct. The “openness” theologians may hold that God specially over-ruled the authors wills for the sake of direct inspiration, but would probably be unhappy about this broader providential oversight. This will inevitably lead to a loss of confidence in the accuracy of scripture, and even into uncertainty over what can be known from it at all. In terms of interpretation, Jesus taught a Christological focus to revelation,[59] and so "it must a fortiori be the case that God had planned both the history and the theology of the Old Testament as predicative of the person and work of Jesus."[60] Indeed, if the crucifixion was merely down to human conspiracy rather than God's long-standing plan, then "the entire pattern of antecedent predicative revelation is destroyed: Yom Kippur, the Passover lamb, the sacrificial system, and so forth. Rip Hebrews out of your Bible, for a start."[61] Even if the "open" theologians say that the incarnation was one of God's special purposes which was decided well in advance, again, they would not be able to accept the degree of providence required to foreshadow it in this way. Thus they must have to brush over the true significance of the Old Testament, which ultimately marginalises Christ, his work, and subsequently salvation itself.[62]
In terms of salvation, a denial of providence leaves the salvation of individuals down to the "accidents of time and geography"[63] rather than the sovereignty of God. Faced with the implications of this for a lost world, it is perhaps no surprise that Pinnock has adopted an inclusivist view of other religions, in which salvation may be received without knowledge of Christ, as pious adherents express a common faith principle seen in a moral life.[64] Although this is based on examples of God-fearing pagans within the Old Testament, it ignores the contact with
Pastoral consequences
Pastorally, it is logical that a marginalising of God's sovereignty will inevitably lead to an increased burden of responsibility that must be born by the Christian alone, and that has consequences in the areas of assurance, prayer, and evangelism respectively.
If "for the most part, the fulfilment of God's will represents a genuine achievement rather than a foregone conclusion,"[68] then in terms of salvific assurance, how can one truly say that nothing "will be able to separate us from the love of God?"[69] The free choices of human beings and spiritual powers in persecuting and bringing hardship on the Christian, may well cause him to turn from God. In theory, one must concede that God's ultimate victory may even be thwarted. With respect to future suffering, the scriptural assurance is that the Christian will not be tempted beyond what he can bear, and that God will work even immense evil according to the believer's ultimate good.[70] Yet without absolute providence and omniscience these statements become void of meaning as God can ensure neither. Instead one is led to despair in the knowledge that the future is subject purely to the whims of human beings, and that Christian suffering contains no purpose whatsoever.[71] Ironically, Basinger sees this as an attractive scenario.[72] Furthermore, although God may occasionally guide a Christian in extra-biblical matters, under the classical view the Christian knows that he will nevertheless never be "outside" God's preordained plan which will providentially come to pass. By contrast, the "open" view may bring great concern as the Christian worries whether he is freely hindering God's present course of action, missing "an opportunity that might have led to a better, more satisfying life,"[73] and forcing God to find another route forward.
Similarly, in prayer, God sovereignly incorporates Christian petitions into the working out of his eternal decrees. Thus, whether or not one prays does ultimately affect whether or not God acts accordingly, and in praying, one can have the assurance that God can indeed answer that prayer by his providential rule. By contrast, although the "open" view makes prayer possible by allowing the occasional intervention of God, it cannot affirm that he is generally predisposed to act in response. Again this is ironic considering the openness concern for "genuine" interaction between God and humanity. Moreover, some may be reticent to pray knowing that although God might intervene in response, he does not know the ultimate consequences of doing so.
The burden of responsibility weighs most in the area of evangelism. Both the classical and "open" view assert a degree of moral accountability for evangelism. However, where the former recognises that when an individual constantly rejects the gospel, this may be down to their lack of regeneration rather than a failure in communication, it seems that the latter, in holding to prevenient grace, can only consider it a matter of their insufficient persuasion that has kept the individual from Christ. Furthermore, in not holding that God will sovereignly ensure that all his elect are saved, it is difficult to see how an "open" Christian can cope with the knowledge that unless they speak to every individual, those individuals may have no other chance of salvation. The attempt to soften this pressure by a commitment to inclusivism has already been considered.
Conclusion
Although the methodology of the “openness” theologians has been questioned, and the consequences of their views assessed, it is however the simple fact that their views of God's sovereignty, providence, knowledge, and eternity do not account for the whole counsel of God, that is most significant. Ultimately it is this failure to do enough theological justice to the weight of scripture, that leads to the theological and pastoral problems outlined above. However, it must be recognised that even without these consequences, the assertion of the doctrines themselves is significantly serious. Although historical theology must always be subject to scripture, the arrival of “openness” theology does show a disrespect for the Christian past. As Bray puts it: "It is hard to believe that in the late twentieth century a few radicals have arrived at a truth that has escaped generations of sincere searchers."[74] More seriously, in presenting "an understanding of God that is distinctively different" from the "classical" view,[75] the implication that one camp has fashioned an idol from a selective use of scripture must be acknowledged. With this in mind, Carson’s comment that “The Openness of God” is “the most consistently inadequate treatment of both Scripture and historical theology dealing with the doctrine of God that I have ever seen from the hands of serious evangelical writers,"[76] certainly warns that any attraction to the “open” view should be properly checked by a more thorough submission to the word of God.
Bibliography:
1. Basinger, David. 'Practical implications' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994)
2. Boettner, Loraine. The reformed doctrine of predestination, (
3. Bray, Gerald. The personal God, (Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 1998)
4. Calvin, J. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, The library of Christian Classics: Volume XX, edited by John T McNeill, translated and indexed by Ford Lews Battles, (
5. Carson, D A. How Long O Lord: Reflections on suffering and evil, (Leicester, IVP, 1990) p.184-188
6. Carson, D A. The difficult doctrine of the love of God, (Leicester, IVP, 2000)
7.
8. Cathermole, Simon. 'The New Testament and Openness Theism' in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (
9. Craig, William L. 'Middle knowledge: A Calvinist-Arminian Rapprochement' in The grace of God, the will of man, edited by Clark Pinnock, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan publishing house, 1989)
10. Gray, Tony. 'Beyond Arminius: Pinnock's Doctrine of God and the Evangelical Tradition' in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (
11. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine, (Leicester, IVP, 1994)
12. Hasker, William. 'A philosophical perspective' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994)
13. Helm, Paul. The providence of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1993)
14. MacDonald, Nathan. 'From Augustine to Arminius, and Beyond' in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (
15. Mills, Paul. A brief theology of time,
16. Pinnock, Clark H. 'Systematic theology' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994)
17. Pinnock, Clark. 'Clark Pinnock's response to part 1' in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 2000)
18. Rice, Richard. 'Biblical support for a new perspective' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994)
19. Richmond, Patrick. 'Openness to the bible? A traditional challenge to Clark Pinnock's understanding of God' in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 2000)
20. Sanders, John. 'Historical considerations' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994)
21. Sinkinson, Christopher. 'In defence of the faith: Clark Pinnock and the world religions,' in in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 2000)
22. Ware, Bruce. Despair amidst suffering and pain: A practical outworking of Open Theism's Diminished View of God, http://www.sbts.edu/news/sbjt/summer2000/warearticle.html
For the Christian / Reliable resources / Into the bible / Doctrinal essentials / Engaging the world / Concerning your career / Thinking theologically / Ethical issues / Church matters / For students
[1] 'Preface' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994), p.7
[2] Sanders, John. 'Historical considerations' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994), p.71
[3] Ibid, p.74
[4] Basinger, David. 'Practical implications' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994), p.160
[5] Ibid, p.159
[6] 'Preface,' Op Cit, p.7
[7] Pinnock, Op Cit, p.119
[8] Rice, Richard. 'Biblical support for a new perspective' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994), p.15
[9] Pinnock, Clark H. 'Systematic theology' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994), p.103
[10] Rice, Op Cit, p.48
[11] 'Preface,' Op Cit, p.7
[12] Rice, Op Cit, p.17
[13] Richmond, Patrick. 'Openness to the bible? A traditional challenge to Clark Pinnock's understanding of God' in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 2000), p.92-94
[14] 'Preface,' Op Cit, p.1-2, see also Pinnock, Op Cit, p.105, "for some reason, when we do theology we lose sight of the openness of God that we experience," Basinger, Op Cit, p.176 "the most plausible, appealing conceptualisation"
[15] Heb 12v29
[16] Carson, D A. The difficult doctrine of the love of God, (Leicester, IVP, 2000), p.17-22
[17] Rice, p.34
[18] Hasker, William. 'A philosophical perspective' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994), p136-137
[19] The jump to qualified omniscience because of such an a-priori commitment to libertarian freedom is particularly evident in the introduction to Pinnock's section on Divine Knowledge: Pinnock, Op Cit, p.121
[20] Eph 1v11
[21] Ps 103:19, Dan 4v35, Eph 1v11
[22] Job 37, Ps 104v14, 135v6, Matt 5v45
[23] Ps 104v21,28, Matt 6v26, 10v29
[24] Job 12v23, Ps 22v28, 66v7, Acts 17v26
[25] Prov 16v33, Matt 10v30
[26] 1 Sam 16v1, Ps 139v16, Is 45v5
[27] Ex 9v16, 1 Kgs 11v14,23, Is 44v28
[28] 2 Sam 12v11-12, Ps 7v12-13, 11v6, Is 10v5, Jer 25v9
[29] Ps 4v8, 5v12, 63v8, 121v3, Rom 8v28, Gen 22v8, 14, Deut 8v3, Phil 4v19
[30] 1 Sam 1v19, Is 20v5,6, 2 Chron 33v13, Ps 65v2, Matt 7v7, Luke 18v7-8
[31] 2 Sam 12v15-18, Job 1-2, Amos 4v6,8,9,10,11, Amos 3v6, Is 45v7, Jn 9v3,11v4, Rom 8v20, 2 Cor 12v7, 1 Pet 3v17
[32] Gen 50v20, Jud 14v4, 2 Sam 16v11, 2 Sam 24v1, Rom 5v20
[33] Ex 4v21, 14v17, Josh 11v20, Jud 3v12, 9v23, Ps 105v25, Is 63v17
[34] Rom 11v32, 2 Thess 2v11-12, 1 Pet 2v8
[35] Acts 2v23, 4v27
[36] 2 Sam 24v1 & 1 Ch 21v1, Job 1v12,15,17,19,21, 1 Kgs 22v23, Rev 6
[37] Hasker, Op Cit, p.?
[38] Pinnock, Op Cit, p.115
[39] Calvin, J. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, The library of Christian Classics: Volume XX, edited by John T McNeill, translated and indexed by Ford Lews Battles, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press), 316
[40] Ibid, p.237 Consider Gen 50v20 "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people"
[41] Pinnock, Op Cit, p.108
[42] Ibid, p.116
[43] Ibid, p.124
[44] Ibid, p.123-124
[45] Hasker, p.152
[46] The implication of Hasker's analogy, Ibid, p.142
[47] Ibid, p.153
[48] Deut 18v22
[49] Consider: Cathermole, Simon. 'The New Testament and Openness Theism' in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 2000), p.77-78
[50] Isaiah 41
[51] Mark 13v32
[52] Psalm 139v16
[53] Bray, Gerald. The personal God, (Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 1998), p.41
[54] 2 Pet 3v8
[55] Bray, Op Cit, p.71
[56] Carson, 'Difficult doctrine,' Op Cit, p.68
[57] Richmond, Op Cit, p.102-103
[58] Carson, D A. How Long O Lord: Reflections on suffering and evil, (Leicester, IVP, 1990) p.184-188
[59] Luke 24v27,44
[60] Cathermole, Op Cit, p.79
[61] Carson, Difficult doctrine, Op Cit, p.60-61
[62] Consider the similarities with the error of the Jewish leaders cf. John 5v37-40
[63] Quoted by, Sinkinson, Christopher. 'In defence of the faith: Clark Pinnock and the world religions,' in in Reconstructing Theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock , edited by Tony Gray and Chris Sinkinson, (Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 2000), p.179
[64] Ibid, p.157-181
[65] Acts 10v1-2,11v14
[66] Basinger, David. 'Practical implications' in The openness of God: a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1994), p.175
[67] Cathermole, Op Cit, p.75
[68] Rice, Op Cit, p.38
[69] Rom 8v39
[70] 1 Cor 10v13, Rom 8v28
[71] Ware, Bruce. Despair amidst suffering and pain: A practical outworking of Open Theism's Diminished View of God, http://www.sbts.edu/news/sbjt/summer2000/warearticle.html
[72] Basinger, Op Cit, p.170-171
[73] Ibid, p.164
[74] Bray, Op Cit, p.6
[75] 'Preface,' Op Cit, p.9
[76] Carson, The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism, (Leicester, IVP, 1996), p.225